What Stéphane spoke about.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I obviously thank the European Parliament for this debate, and I thank you in particular, Madam President Cavazzini, because your oral question covers all the major issues relating to the internal market. It also reaffirms its essential role for Europe's prosperity. This is also the ambition of the Single Market Strategy, which the Commission will present in exactly two weeks' time. A draft of this strategy has, as you know, already leaked in the press. I will therefore say a few words before giving a very concrete answer to all the questions put by the rapporteur. Let us return to the context together, first of all, since, after the excellent reports, which were unanimously welcomed, by Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi, geopolitical tensions and fragmentation remind us that the internal market is our main asset and that the best partners for Europeans are the Europeans themselves. Faced with the urgency of tapping better into this formidable economic space, I therefore propose a method and a number of compromises that we must collectively find together. First, the method of tackling the most costly and concrete barriers to our internal market. Then compromises, which must also be made, between the Member States, with the Member States, but also between the political groups. It is also a question of having fewer internal barriers against more protection outside. You spoke eminently of foreign trade and e-commerce, which is probably the cause, at this very moment, of a number of deregulations of our internal market. Protect yourself more from the outside, but in a spirit of openness to new business partnerships, while adopting a doctrine of European preference, "made in Europe", for certain strategic sectors. I will be delighted to come back to this House at the mini-plenary in May to present the internal market strategy very formally. I will now return to the questions you asked in your resolution. As you know, efforts to strengthen our internal market must be shared by all actors in the European Union. In the Commission, my colleagues and I have counted and know that we can count on the European Parliament's commitment to this issue. Of course, the Member States are central players and, I say quite bluntly, all too often the letter and spirit of the rules adopted at European level are lost at national level, often because of a sub-transposition, sometimes over-transposition, sometimes even a total lack of transposition. A few words about goods and services in general. Free movement is effective for goods. Nevertheless, as you have rightly pointed out, Madam Rapporteur, we must face the emergence of new problems, particularly in terms of compliance, sustainability and also transparency towards consumers. As far as compliance is concerned, I am thinking, for example, of the explosion of e-commerce, as I mentioned in the introduction. It requires from us strong customs, homogenized controls throughout Europe. This is not yet the case today and I would really like to thank the European Parliament for its ambitious proposal on the subject. The ball is now in the hands of the Member States when it comes to customs reform and we will also carry that momentum. The rise of e-commerce also requires more harmonised and efficient market surveillance mechanisms. In terms of sustainability, an internal market for the circular economy is needed to implement the right to re-use and repair. We will also work with you. As far as transparency is concerned, I am obviously thinking of 'shrinkflation', a phenomenon on which you have asked the Commission, but also of 'skimpflation'. The first is to reduce the quantity at constant prices and the second is to reduce the level of service without reducing the price. These are new mottos that point to a growing lack of transparency for consumers, which the European Parliament and the institutions need to address. Regulatory safeguards already exist at EU level to better protect consumers and Member States need to put in place the provisions we proposed – and put them fully in place. In any case, the Commission will continue to support Member States through dedicated cooperation networks, and we will also ensure that these issues are at the heart of the consumer agenda for 2025-2030, under the responsibility of Commissioner McGrath. Then, Mr President, after goods, a few words about services. Here too, you are challenging the Commission on the continuing risks of fragmentation of our market. It is true that the current situation is far from satisfactory. Nearly two-thirds of the barriers that exist today are the barriers that existed 20 years ago and still persist today. In particular, access to nearly 5 700 regulated services is still severely hampered at Member State level, while the heterogeneity of schemes for posted workers or seasonal workers further complicates cross-border services and investments. We need to fix this once and for all. That is why we will propose concrete solutions to facilitate the recruitment of workers and the recognition of skills and qualifications in regulated professions. They will be part of the Commission's initiative on skills portability, which will be published at the end of next year. We will also favour a sectoral approach in services to be more effective. Your oral question also referred to consumer protection, in particular with regard to digital uses. I talked about the explosion of e-commerce, but, as you know, we also voted, during the last term of office, the Digital Services Act (DSA). The European Union has a unique tool in the world that empowers platforms. We also have a Digital Markets Act (DMA), which allows as many players as possible, regardless of their size or status, to enter the market, which was previously blocked by so-called 'gate keepers'. The implementation of the DSA and DMA is just beginning, but we continue and will continue to pursue exactly the same ambition for these two texts as in the previous mandate. They will be implemented by the different directorates of the Commission and under the supervision of Henna Virkkunen, who is responsible for these issues. Madam Rapporteur, Mr President, I would like to end with a word, as I also mentioned it in the introduction: When we present the Single Market Strategy, which will feature prominently in our debates towards the end of the year, it will be an opportunity for us to also give a place to the issue of simplification. That is why, on 21 May, we will present the fourth omnibus simplification package. Its objective is quite clear: For us, it is about unlocking the potential of all the companies that make, organise and operate the Single Market. We are working on two issues in particular: the definition of small mid-caps, which is highly anticipated by parliamentarians, and the digitalisation of administrative procedures and compliance for products entering the market. I know I can count on the constructive approach of the European Parliament to move this matter forward quickly. I welcome this opportunity to gather your suggestions and priorities during this debate.

Madam President, I will be brief, as in the last debate I concluded at length and exceeded my speaking time. Let's start with some lessons to be learned from the period we have just experienced on the geopolitical level, especially regarding the energy implications. With regard to Russian gas – since the question is still why we had an inflationary energy price crisis – the Commission’s objective today is indeed to avoid any dependence or new dependence, and this also concerns critical raw materials. We intend to guard against risks to our supplies of critical raw materials in a number of strategic sectors, including in the steel sector, with the strengthening of the safeguard clause now. This is a matter of urgency, and the Commission is responding to it. We have taken into account all the lessons learned during this period, with the risks of dependency and the increased risks stemming from the current geopolitical situation and the diplomatic tensions that are emerging around the world today. Supplies that are now secure may become less secure. It is therefore our responsibility to be able, together with the Commission, to deal with this subject. We have done so with 17 critical raw materials and we will continue to do so across all sectors. It is our responsibility to plan the supply of these raw materials for our manufacturers. Secondly, the price of energy. There is a short-term strategy, a medium-term strategy and a long-term strategy. The short term, as I mentioned in my introduction: these are short-term and priority contracts, the famous power purchase contracts, which make it possible to conclude an agreement between the energy producer and the consumer with a stabilised price, public guarantees from the EIB – and which can act as counter-guarantees to ensure the sustainability of all these contracts – but also energy production, since the European strategy is in production. Whatever the national energy mix, there will be a need to invest in networks, including cross-border ones. To this end, we have decompartmentalised, in particular, the Cohesion Fund, which will make it possible, in the coming months and years, to invest in decarbonisation, but also in energy infrastructure, with the aim of multiplying our cross-border interactions as well as improving and modernising networks, thereby lowering energy prices. The granting of permits is also an important point. The Commission will work on this by making it possible to shorten the deadlines for the installation of projects – in particular decarbonisation projects. It is well known that clean technologies must somehow connect to energy-intensive industries in order to be able to respond to energy supply. Finally – and I will conclude on this – the protection of our sectors, with trade instruments. I would first like to say to Mrme Grapini that other sectors will follow, since the European Commission has started a policy dialogue on the chemical industry, which is one of the sectors concerned by this debate, with obligations for us to modernise our infrastructure – 40% of our steam crackers are over 40 years old. Today, we need to be able to modernise our infrastructure and make it more efficient in terms of international competition and competitiveness in Europe. Regarding the impact assessment, of the 47 projects proposed by the European Commission, 10 relate to recycling. Raw material recycling targets are a priority for the Commission. We estimate that, by 2030, more than 25% of the 17 critical and strategic raw materials we have listed can be recycled at European level. This is a first step. Today, we are not there at all, since some of our raw materials go to Asia for recycling, from where it comes back to us repackaged. This is the paradox of this situation. That is it, Madam President, in the hope that it has not been too long and that it has remained within the allotted time. I welcome the discussions we can have with the European Parliament, as a number of laws will follow on the implementation of this pact and the practical responses we can provide to our European industry.

Madam President, on behalf of the European Commission, I would like to thank Parliament, and in particular the ITRE Committee, for putting the topic of energy-intensive industries on the agenda of this session. This debate allows us to continue the discussion we had on the Steel and Metals Action Plan, published on 19 March. This shows how much the European Union recognises both the economic weight and the strategic nature of energy-intensive industries! Strategic because they are often at the base of the entire value chain and are therefore at the centre of our innovation. It must also be recognized that these industries are moving along a ridge line. While they represent nearly 8 million jobs in Europe and around EUR 500 billion in added value, they are also responsible for 19% of greenhouse gas emissions, hence our strategy and ambition to support them in decarbonisation. It is our duty to support the decarbonisation of all these industries, but also their competitiveness, as I mentioned at the end of the previous debate, in order to give them the capacity to draw up a development plan and to leave them room for manoeuvre that will allow them to make new investments in this area. We are well aware of the difficulties they face. This includes – and we will probably discuss this very broadly – the price of energy, which is much higher in our country than in our competitors. This is also demand, which is idling. In the previous debate, I mentioned a number of avenues on our ability to carry out reforms, including on clauses in public procurement. Finally, these are the overcapacities that have exploded, are boosted by subsidies and are pouring into the European market. It is therefore urgent for Europe to contain and reverse the trend. To achieve this, we presented the Clean Industry Pact. We had the opportunity to discuss it here in this Chamber last month: it is a roadmap that provides a trajectory with a decarbonisation target. To put it simply, we are staying the course, which is also an economic strategy for us, but we are somehow changing the method, speeding up or allowing some flexibility when necessary. This pact was conceived as a cross-cutting framework. It is monitored and complemented by sectoral action plans: steel and metals, and soon the chemical industry – a very important industry in Europe, as we see it as a mattress for all other industries. It is often referred to as the ‘industry of industries’. The Commission has therefore proposed ambitious schemes, with energy-intensive industries at the centre. The first priority is access to clean and affordable energy. We will come back to this during the debate, but direct sales contracts – power purchase agreements (PPAs) – and contracts for difference are very relevant levers. We will generalize them. They have been put forward as part of the electricity market reform, and the Commission will do its utmost to support their implementation in Member States and with willing partners. I would add that the Commission, with the support of the European Investment Bank (EIB), will launch a pilot programme of counter-guarantees, the aim of which is to better share the risks in direct sales contracts, and thus to promote their widespread use by industrialists and energy producers. At the same time, action is needed with all other sectors and all other components of electricity prices, including grid costs, taxes and levies. This represents a certain effort for the Commission, since it is also a matter of working closely with the Member States and aligning all European policy with good practices, which we can replicate in all Member States. Governance is difficult, and the Commission needs significant political capital to align all countries on this path. This is the Commission's mission: decarbonisation projects and decarbonised products. Legislation should follow, but first we need to streamline permit-granting procedures for decarbonisation projects. We will also support the dynamics driven by directives from the last Commission: Renewable Energy Directive, Critical Raw Materials Act – which you voted in the last legislature – and Net-Zero Industry Act. We will then support the demand for low-carbon and Made in Europe products. I also mentioned it at the end of the previous debate. As for the financial aspect, which is very important, we obviously agreed on a set of measures to be based on serious and ambitious financial aspects for all these industries. We first agreed on a mid-term review of the cohesion funds, the aim of which will be, inter alia, to better contribute to decarbonisation: we will broaden the spectrum of these cohesion funds, and I have been very insistent that energy-intensive industries be taken into account in this reprogramming, which the College of Commissioners announced yesterday. Another tool is the €100 billion decarbonisation bank announced in the Clean Industry Pact. I will end with three quick topics: access to raw materials, the issue of recycling and sustainability, and the conditions under which we can extract raw materials in Europe. We will propose legislation on the circular economy that will push the use of recycled raw materials even further, including considering the internal market to the benefit of the European recycling industry. It is about creating both supply and demand. These are challenges for us, since the Critical Raw Materials Regulation that you voted for implies that the recycling of the 17 identified critical and strategic raw materials exceeds 25%. These measures will also complement ongoing efforts on trade defence instruments, with anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and anti-circumvention measures, and we will preserve quality jobs and skills, which will be at the heart of our strategy. That is it, ladies and gentlemen – I have exceeded my time, Madam President, but I would like to say that this debate must also shed light on our future strategy and more generally on energy-intensive industries. Our ability to lower energy prices is perhaps the only competitiveness criterion we need to be able to play on today, especially in a period of international instability and complex geopolitical movements for our industries.

Madam President, first of all, I note a form of unanimity and an invitation to swift implementation. This is good, it is also the ambition of the Commission: Go fast. The international geopolitical context, on this particular day that President Trump has chosen to call Liberation Day, also calls for urgency. There is a sense of urgency, but it is not just a feeling: for the steel and metals sector, this was the last call for a concrete, organised, structured plan covering all the parameters of competitiveness, from securing the sector – with our trade defence instruments – to the ability for us to provide a long-term development plan for this industry. I would like to come back to a number of points: first, on metal waste and scrap. As I said, exports have doubled in recent years. We are therefore working on export restrictions, if necessary, in the coming weeks or months. In any case, we have important challenges around this dimension, which concern our production capacity not only for steel, but also for other types of metals requiring metal waste, and therefore scrap, in order to be able to be produced under normal competitive conditions in Europe. As far as low-carbon steel is concerned, I am counting on the European Parliament to look into the review of public procurement that we will launch in the coming weeks. Another important issue concerns our definition of low-carbon steel. We will be able to include this definition in public procurement clauses, which will allow contracting authorities – municipalities, regions, states – to include quantities of European steel in public procurement. I would remind Members here that public procurement accounts for 14% of European GDP. Changing these criteria can therefore clearly create the demand needed to fill the order books of our steel mills, and this is a matter of political will. I am of course counting on the European Parliament to support the Commission in this process. I also want to reassure the left and The Left: there is no planned trade agreement in the area of steel, in particular as regards quotas. The opposite is true. Since 1 April – so yesterday – we have restricted the safeguard clause. We have made it more rigid, with the result that steel imports into Europe will be reduced by around 15% in the coming months. We protect the steel sector, we organise the development plan so that we can find business opportunities, but also ways to safeguard our industry and our production capacity. In the steel industry, 80% of European production and needs occur on European soil. Our intention is to preserve our industry to keep that 80% operational and protect us from possible geopolitical and trade tensions in the years to come. I also take this opportunity to assume our strategy on critical raw materials. We need to protect ourselves from the risks. We are 100% dependent on China, and I really prefer that mining takes place in Europe rather than in Africa, under complicated environmental and social conditions. I always find it particular, coming from the left, that we prefer to import raw materials produced under catastrophic social and environmental conditions rather than try to repatriate production to Europe, and thus encourage Member States to reopen farms. I take this opportunity to express my condolences for the miners killed in Asturias. It is a sector where it is always dangerous to work, but social conditions have changed a lot in Europe. We have to work on that. But I also assume our production capacity in Spain and Europe, in that dimension. On the issue of competitiveness – this time I turn to the right and I will finish there, Madam President – it is important to say that the conditions for competitiveness vis-à-vis China are not linked to the Green Deal. They are linked to different working conditions, different wages, different subsidy conditions, but the difference in competitiveness that exists between us and China in the steel sector has no link with the Green Deal. We must not talk about anything. We will work on the factors of competitiveness for our industry and we will embark on this path with the support of Parliament. In any case, the legislative agenda is ambitious and dense. He is waiting for us here in Parliament with all the political groups. I will of course work closely with Parliament, and I thank you for this debate, which enlightens all our fellow citizens on the Commission’s ambitions in this area.

Madam President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to inaugurate this new method with you, and I do not need to recall here how the steel and metal industry is at the heart of the European project: Beyond the aspirations for peace and shared prosperity, the European project started with the steel industry. On this particular day, which Donald Trump called Liberation Day, the economic and geopolitical context once again gives us the opportunity to appreciate the importance of steel and metals in our industrial fabric, not only for our prosperity, but also for our collective security. As you know, the European Commission presented a clean industry pact at the end of February, with a clear slogan: reconciling competitiveness and decarbonisation, as these are the conditions for European prosperity. The Clean Industry Pact proposes a cross-cutting approach, which fully integrates the challenges of the steel and metals industry. On energy, for example, its cost represents 17% of production costs in the steel sector and up to 40% in the aluminium sector. These figures are clearly problematic for our competitiveness, given the price of energy in Europe. In addition, there is unbridled or even distorted competition from third countries, such as China and other Asian or Middle Eastern countries. We are reaching unprecedented levels of global overcapacity. For steel, for example, this represents more than four and a half times the annual consumption of the European Union. All these challenges require targeted and ambitious support measures from the European Union. In the wake of the momentum generated by the Pact, the Commission therefore presented an action plan for steel and metals two weeks ago, which was based in particular on consultations with stakeholders in the industry concerned, in particular during the strategic dialogue launched at the beginning of March with the social partners and the industries concerned. This new method has also been replicated in all the sectors on which we have acted, by proposing sectoral plans. Our objective is therefore twofold: on the one hand, in the short term, to act on competitiveness factors, and on the other hand, in the long term, to send a signal to trigger the investments needed for decarbonisation, with the aim of modernising our productive apparatus as part of this plan. One of the projects that the plan is working on is, of course, the energy project. We want to provide a quick response to price volatility and grid access difficulties, using power purchase agreements, reducing grid tariffs in Member States and being flexible on energy taxes. A second important point that the plan addresses is the reform to improve the effectiveness of the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Later this year, the Commission will publish a communication on exports to third countries. This will be followed by a legislative proposal to extend the scope of the mechanism and introduce additional anti-circumvention measures. Our action plan also aims to safeguard our European production capacities. We have strengthened the current safeguard clause for steel and, by the autumn, the Commission will come forward with a new proposal that will take over from 2026 and put in place an ever more ambitious scheme, including for aluminium, if necessary when the time comes. Finally, a few words on circularity: The Commission is taking the matter head-on. In particular, we plan to introduce targets for recycled steel and aluminium. In addition, trade measures concerning scrap exports – scraps – are also under consideration. These exports have more than doubled in recent years, and it is important to keep some of this scrap in Europe, which is used to make a number of industrial sites profitable and to lower the price and cost of this raw material. The European Union has taken up this issue, and we will also be there. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the essence of the spirit and the letter of the Steel and Metals Action Plan. I know that we share the same concern for the future of the sector and I am pleased, on behalf of the Commission, that we can discuss it today.

Madam President, I would like to thank all Members for this enlightening debate, which shows that we still need to make progress towards consensus on decarbonising our economy. In fact, since the war in Ukraine and the end of the supply of low-cost Russian gas, our decarbonisation strategy has become an economic strategy, as we need to produce energy on our continent by reducing the risks associated with third countries. We must also put the necessary means to electrify as much as possible and support our companies and industries in this electrification. It is an economic issue, a competitiveness issue, but also a strategic issue for Europe. When I hear a number of speakers, there are probably three pitfalls that the Commission will not fall into. The first is to recreate new dependencies on other energies or continents, posing a risk of economic and geopolitical fragility. The second is to consider that everything needs to be nationalised and planned in order to lower the price of energy. We need a roadmap with an analysis that shows that our companies will be able to generate margins and therefore be more competitive with cheaper energy. So far, I do not know of a nationalised system that allows for economic efficiency. The third – and possibly the fourth – point I wanted to raise was the issue of international issues. I think that in a moment that is turbulent from an international point of view – Europe is in a complex situation vis-à-vis discussions and threats on European tariffs – the answer will have to be global. It is comprehensive in terms of competitiveness, and we wanted to be able to address a number of issues, such as the price of energy, which is proving to be a factor of competitiveness for all European industries. In this context, I want to rebound on some questions that have been raised about the price of energy and our ability to guarantee it in the context of PPPs. Yes, the European Investment Bank will act as guarantor for PPPs, to be able to secure and reduce the risks associated with these PPPs, which are multiplying and which are a good thing, since they remove the volatility of the price of energy and make it possible to get out of the carbon price of our electricity the contracts of this kind that have been concluded between energy producers and industrialists. This issue, in any case, will be at the heart of our priorities to give visibility, secure supply and ensure low energy prices in the period. This is an emergency measure, but one that we want to perpetuate and expand in the coming months and years. The overall answer concerns the price of energy – I mentioned it – but also the demand for decarbonised products – I also mentioned it on the issue of raw materials and our ability to produce raw materials again in Europe. Yes, at some point we will have to reopen rare materials, rare earths and raw materials mines in Europe, if we do not want to depend on partnerships, and possibly on mines that make workers work under conditions that we Europeans do not accept ourselves. These partnerships will not be concluded with countries that make a certain number of workers work in absolutely disastrous conditions. I am thinking in particular of the DRC: In view of the country’s geopolitical conditions, there were several possible partnerships with the DRC concerning various raw materials, which no longer seem to me to be possible. The way forward for Europe must be to reduce the risks associated with our raw materials, including by producing in Europe. It is like energy. We do not produce oil, we do not produce gas and we have a number of instruments to be able to be autonomous in our ability to produce energy, at this crucial moment, including for our industry: energy prices, financing, circularity and, finally, training and skills, since these sectoral plans are also done with trade unions and professional forces. We have received them, we have built the sectoral plans with them, whether on automotive, steel or chemistry, and we will continue this method of consultation and co-construction of responses, which must correspond to an economic reality. As you have understood, our aim is to accelerate decarbonisation for strategic reasons, for competitiveness reasons, but also to make Europe stronger in this complex and uncertain moment at international level. I will soon come to the European Parliament for a hearing in the ITRE, ECON, IMCO, JURI, ENVI and INTA Committees, which have invited me. We will discuss all these issues in detail, and I would also like to thank the political groups for their support. Let us avoid politicising the Green Deal. He's probably given a number of cold administrative sweats to our businesses, and we're trying to sort that out. But once again, when the subjects of our economic strategy and our climate objectives come together, I believe that this should bring together a very large part of this House.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving us the opportunity today to discuss the proposals that the European Commission published on 26 February. With this plan, we are empowering to decarbonise and reindustrialise at the same time – more than €100 billion in all. Indeed, decarbonising our industry is not just an environmental issue; it is also a growth strategy and a security imperative for us Europeans. This is the focus of my work with Teresa Ribera and Wopke Hoekstra; it is a strong commitment and industrial production made in Europe, sustainable and competitive. Ladies and gentlemen, we know that expectations are very high on this subject. They have spoken during all the industrial visits I have been able to make since the beginning of this mandate, including with you, sometimes. In a nutshell, it may be necessary to synthesize things as follows: We have to produce more and we have to produce better. To produce better means to produce decarbonised and European. This pact is, in a way, the roadmap for Europe's low-carbon industry. It is based on four main lines: demand, costs, financing and inputs. The Application, first. Companies and their employees all tell us: we have made efforts to decarbonise our industries and businesses, but there is not enough demand for clean steel or clean cement. The priority is therefore to boost the low-carbon market in Europe. This requires stimulating demand. This pact proposes to completely rethink the logic of public procurement, which has so far too often been based solely on the criterion of price. We will introduce new criteria for sustainability, resilience, performance and European preference in public procurement, and more generally in public support. I know that the Committee on the Internal Market and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs are already working on this project. In this context, we will have the opportunity to review with you all the objectives and share all of Parliament’s priorities and prerogatives on this review of public procurement. The second line is costs. Our industrial sites face the same problems, namely excessively high energy prices. These are competitiveness criteria that bring together all the problems we face in industry. As the electricity market is now too volatile, which contributes to higher bills, it is necessary to allow the most energy-consuming sites to escape from this volatility. Together with Teresa Ribera and Dan Jørgensen, we therefore propose to strengthen long-term energy purchase agreements. This should increase clean energy production in Europe, decouple electricity and gas prices, and promote energy security in Europe. The third point is funding. The idea is simple: we support financially the industrial sectors that play the game. Their decarbonisation is a central objective of our policy, with the European institutions on the one hand, but also the Member States, public authorities and private companies. For EU funds, we plan to mobilise the Innovation Fund as well as ETS revenues, but also to mobilise funds, mainly private, through InvestEU. Thanks to a good simplification measure, we propose to increase its impact by EUR 50 billion, of which EUR 25 billion can be directly mobilised for the decarbonisation of these large sites. Last line of our roadmap: inputs. We have two objectives: reduce the cost of raw materials and limit our dependencies. This starts with securing our own extractions and exploitation of raw materials and rare metals. The Commission is finalising a list of several dozen raw material projects across Europe – you are likely to have them in all countries and Member States. In addition, we will encourage in the Circular Economy Act to keep waste from our critical raw materials in Europe. I said this during the Commissioners’ hearing, but today it is not normal for Europe to export black milling – batteries in particular – and then buy it back and repackage it at a high price that can be reused in Europe. Finally, we propose, again on this topic, to create a common platform for purchasing raw materials, and therefore to decide together who we buy from, how and at what price. We need to do with lithium and cobalt what we did for vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic, which brings me to my last point. Europe, far from being just a playground, is also a player, and we need to make more systematic use of our trade defence tools by strengthening the rules, especially those on foreign subsidies, of which our companies are the first victims, and by introducing new conditions for foreign investment on our soil. Ladies and gentlemen, a number of these proposals will be rolled out in various sectors and sectoral plans. We started unveiling them with the car last week; next week will be dedicated to steel, followed by chemistry, sustainable transport and the bioeconomy. In any case, you can be sure of our mobilization on this subject, which remains important, because it falls under both the economic strategy and the climate strategy.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps a few words first of all to tell you that this compass for competitiveness has not come out of nowhere. It was worked on with all the political groups at the time of the constitution of the majority in this Chamber and it is 80% of the result of the reports which you yourself voted for in this Chamber, in this debate, the Draghi and Letta reports. Therefore, if we agree with the Draghi and Letta reports, we normally agree, coherently, with the text produced by the Commission, which is about 80% copied and pasted, which we ourselves considered useful for the compass for European competitiveness. The report is balanced. It allows us to have a clear view of the economic situation in Europe, to use the instruments I mentioned in the introduction to be able to respond to them, to accelerate, to have elements of flexibility that will allow us to respond, in particular, to crises that we would not have foreseen and that we should face in the coming years. For all these reasons, I imagine that the entire representation here and parliamentarians will support the approach. Nevertheless, allow me also, Madam President, to mention some pitfalls that we must not fall into, and which I have seen in this debate. First of all, we must not think that the Green Deal is responsible for everything, including our economic situation. Moreover, it is quite funny, sometimes surprising, to see the same pro-Russian parties explain to us that the Green Deal is responsible for everything, where these same parties tended to be more dependent on Russian gas a few years ago, in the same hemicycle here. I had other responsibilities at the time, but we had that debate. We have faced a gas and gas price crisis that has created an energy price crisis, a major competitiveness problem in Europe that needs to be addressed. But if the Green Deal was perhaps a climate and environmental strategy, this issue has also become an economic strategy on the decarbonisation part of the economy, on the energy production part in Europe, on our territory, in a sovereign way, to lower the price of energy, to produce more. But this will require a strategy that also concerns networks, transport infrastructure, electricity, between European borders, in particular, to be able to balance national networks more quickly, to avoid electricity price spikes. All this is a short-term, medium-term and long-term strategy. You have it in the compass for competitiveness and we implement this strategy very pragmatically in the texts we have planned to present at the end of February and the beginning of March. Second pitfall, Madam President: objectives and means should not be confused. Often, the pitfall in which politicians fall is to make the means the objective. In this period of diplomatic tensions and economic complexity, we need flexibility and we need to change the way we achieve our goals. You have to be able to understand it, you have to be able to anticipate it. We must be able to give ourselves the capacity to do so. The compass for competitiveness, the various texts that we will have to discuss here in this Chamber, which will be legislative texts, will normally allow us to adjust the path towards the objectives that we have set ourselves. This is the whole meaning of simplification as well, that of not making the path an untouchable goal. As European politicians, we have set ourselves the goal of decarbonising our economy by 2050. As I mentioned, it is now an economic strategy as much as a climate strategy, but we must adapt the means to be able to achieve the same objectives. I believe that this is one of the messages that we have all received from the European elections and that the Commission will implement. Last but not least: the internal market. Some of you mentioned the growth prospects of a 450 million market whose barriers are still very present in many sectors. I would like to inform you this evening that the President has asked me to speed up the internal market strategy so that I can publish it very quickly and have a democratic discussion with all the co-legislators, in the Council and in the European Parliament. We will therefore accelerate this strategy so that it can also be a response to the international economic closure. We need answers too. And the internal market gives us growth prospects for our economies at a time of significant diplomatic tensions, growth that will protect our companies and, probably and above all, our European SMEs. That's it, I'll leave it at that. We could obviously talk a lot about this subject. You have understood the doctrine that the Commission has set itself for the next five years in economic terms. I hope that we will always be able to debate it, to make it evolve, since this doctrine must also have elements of flexibility that allow us precisely to adapt our economic strategy in an uncertain period. Then the texts will come to Parliament in the coming weeks and months, with a sense of urgency, a sense of flexibility and pragmatism at a time when, of course, our competitors are experiencing economic euphoria, which is not good either for the European model that we all defend here, or for our competitiveness strategy for the future. So it is up to us Europeans to play, we have all the means to succeed in this period. We just need, as I said, to speed up the predictability and flexibility of our responses. Thank you, Madam President. We will have the opportunity to have this debate, I imagine, and probably on many, many occasions in this House, and I welcome that.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Minister, on behalf of the European Commission, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the compass for competitiveness. As its name suggests, its ambition is to set a course for the European Union in these times of economic and geopolitical uncertainty. More than ever, we need a shared goal and objectives, and in particular to have the elements of the path to follow to achieve these ambitions that we have set ourselves. This initiative confirms the commitment of the new Commission to: Putting competitiveness at the heart of the European agenda. It also confirms the urgent need for action. After the unprecedented crises we have experienced in recent years, Europe has done a job of introspection. It is evidenced in particular by the recent reports by Mr Draghi and Mr Letta. The diagnosis is unequivocal: Europe risks slowing down even more and must move faster today in its transformations and reforms, especially compared to our major competitors, the United States and China. The risk of economic drop-out is therefore now very real. It is also clear from this observation, which is watermarked, that the European Union is very far from exploiting its potential, I am thinking in particular of the internal market. In other words, it is far from having maximized its competitiveness potential to carry out its ambitions and assert its interests. So, ladies and gentlemen, to remedy this, the compass for competitiveness has three main priorities. The first: combining decarbonisation and competitiveness. This priority will lead, within a fortnight, to the presentation of the clean industry pact. The aim is to enable the European Union to create the right investment conditions. In short, this is about making the Green Deal competitive and enabling our companies to decarbonise and find space to trade globally with competitive products. This is one of the main objectives we have set ourselves. Part of this text will be devoted to access to affordable energy. If there is a subject and a factor of competitiveness on which we can act, it would be the question of energy, but also access to raw materials and therefore the security of our entire supply chain. It will also mean having debates, in all humility, which should allow us to reproduce and refocus and possibly reopen mines in Europe to produce raw materials as part of our supply chains. I am thinking in particular of the question of the battery. Then it is necessary to develop promising markets or access to finance. As a second step, this framework initiative will pave the way for a series of action plans. These plans will be designed as closely as possible to sectoral realities, in particular for the automobile, for steel or for chemistry. A second priority will be to close our innovation gap. This is also the spirit of the summit for artificial intelligence that has just ended in Paris. This includes building genuine European industrial leadership for these European champions in the deep tech and all sectors with high growth potential, such as biotech. We have seen this debate at the hearings of the Commissioners and we continue to believe that these industries will form and will be the industries of tomorrow that will create jobs and growth at European level. With these lessons, we will have to be able to support and target innovative start-ups that have not always had the financial levers to grow, because they face difficulties to reach the scale-up, with business successes that are uncertain, companies that will also finance themselves on the other side of the Atlantic, and we will also have to be able, more generally, to infuse the culture of innovation with European SMEs. The third priority is the reduction of our dependencies and a level playing field. Obviously, we will reduce our dependencies by consolidating our supply value chains, as I mentioned with regard to raw materials, also by strengthening all the elements of economic security that the Commission has at its disposal today. This has enabled us to implement new partnerships for clean trade and investment. We will also ensure, for the most critical technologies and sectors, that the best interests of the European Union are promoted, in particular by further promoting made in Europe in public procurement. So much for priorities. I will end, Mr President, by saying a few words about the method. Three big watchwords, if I want to summarize things quickly: simplify, invest and accelerate. Simplify: we will have this debate, because our companies must devote their energy to what they know how to do best, that is to say, to produce, to create value and to create quality jobs. Invest, then, because we will have to find possible investment levers to focus our industrial ambitions, especially on new technologies that are strategic. Finding investments means mobilising capital, it also means finding elements that will allow us to find financial products to raise European savings. Accelerate, finally, because the world is not waiting for us and we must in any case give our industrial ecosystem the means to climb into the lead, but above all to stay there in the long term.

Mr President, I will not risk summarising or drawing lessons from your debate. The Commission will therefore be left with a number of lessons that we can draw collectively, in this debate which is fundamental, which is a debate on competitiveness and which we will have in the next discussion and in the next hour with all the Members of the European Parliament around the fight for competitiveness, which is the instrument, today, which should be declined by the Commission in the coming months and respond to the challenges you mentioned. I will, however, embark on one or two points of teaching, in any case realities, that bring us together, beyond the differences and divergences that are real between the political groups. We all want Europe to remain a continent with industry, innovation and quality jobs. Of course, Europe is not the American model, it is not the Chinese model, it has its own model, but it must also work on its competitiveness, its cost competitiveness, its value competitiveness. We must also work to define our European model as we can talk about it outside European borders, as we can also promote it in our European Union, and we must also build the levers of our competitiveness from our particularities, in a coherent way, in a way that I want to say sustainable, predictable, over the long term. This is also what our companies are asking of us and, of course, in cooperation – and this will be my last word – with all the democratic forces that are ready to work on this particular model and that, I believe, also make Europe a continent apart in the political structure, both in its institutions and in the values that it can promote around the world.

Mr President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, at a time when we are doing everything possible to create the conditions for the competitiveness of the European economy – and this will be the subject of the next debate on the compass for competitiveness – it was important to look at the interaction between the political environment, the confidence of economic actors and competitiveness. Following the last European elections, the political landscape of the European Union has probably become more polarised than ever, a fundamental trend that echoes the current balance of power in the world. This polarization leads to the formation of fracture lines. All of us here must be aware of the risks and consequences of European disunity. The European Union, it should be recalled here in this Chamber, is a political project. First, this project was born from a triple aspiration: aspiration to peace, aspiration to democracy, aspiration to prosperity. Secondly, it was built on a foundation of values shared by each of the Member States that adhere to it: rule of law, multilateralism, market economy. Finally, this European project works through the culture of compromise: No one's crushing anyone. Our institutions are made to create this compromise, to build the rule. These founding principles make the European Union a unique political and institutional edifice, as you know here. Now, today, he seems challenged first of all by the resurgence of neo-imperialist tendencies: calls for protectionism, without nuance, with an enormous withdrawal into oneself, without nuance in the discussion, deregulation indiscriminately, without long-term vision either. So yes, the risk of the economy dropping out is very real, but it is not by lowering all levels of ambition that we will be able to combine the economy and allow a new economic boom. Yes, we will lose ground on the race, on innovation, on our devices that today make the strength of Europe, but our inventiveness, our ability to invest, to create value, to create jobs is not just the lowest-priced regulation, I said, nor to consider that the objectives we have set ourselves have the same status as the path we want to take to achieve them. It will obviously have to be made clear during these debates that Europe must remain ambitious on its climate and environmental policy, while making a strong simplification, removing a number of bureaucratic constraints, if Europe is to be more energy independent and better able to control the price of energy for its businesses and citizens. It will be necessary to continue to increase capacity on renewable energies. More broadly, progress must be made on clean technologies. When we talk about competitiveness, we aspire to give a direction to the industry, with the obligation to register also in the long term, to have predictability for our companies. However, how can we justify economically a vision that would call into question all the investment efforts we are making, including local and regional authorities, regions and municipalities that have already committed themselves to these objectives? I want to mention here the former Gdańsk shipyards, where I visited last week. Obviously, we must listen to the concerns, sometimes even the worries, the fears of citizens and businesses, not to go back, but above all to better accompany them. This means questioning ourselves on the path we have chosen to achieve our objectives: simplify without deregulating, simplify to better deploy. This is the line chosen by the Commission, on which, in any case, we will have to debate in the coming weeks between the clean industry pact and omnibus laws. For its part, the Commission is working on it, as I said, in particular through the compass for competitiveness and a roadmap that is resolutely forward-looking and firmly anchored in our European values, those that are defended here by pro-European groups and that the European Commission will also defend throughout its mandate.

Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Government, ladies and gentlemen, an end-of-term presidency of the Council is always a challenge. The expectations are immense, and rightly so. It takes seriousness and consistency. So my group – and I am obliged to start there – would have preferred that this beginning of the presidency was not polluted by the arrival of national issues on the European scene. This assembly is regularly transformed into a hemicycle in which prime ministers are called upon to intervene. This is not news, it is a habit now. Nevertheless, you are aware of my group’s commitment to the foundations of the rule of law, including the independence of the judiciary. And I say it here: no national law can derogate from this, and my group will, for the time being, be attentive to the European Commission's recommendations on this subject. However, the determination of the Spanish Presidency is to be welcomed. We wanted and we want results for our fellow citizens, and so do you! Our colleagues who have been locked in a room for hours during the negotiations on artificial intelligence can testify to this: We are the first continent to write the rules of the game. The reform of the electricity market was an absolute necessity to respond to energy price inflation. It is moving forward, and I even believe that tonight we could have substantial progress to make known. It is essential to reach an agreement on the subject that is acceptable to all. You mentioned a number of points from the raw materials agreement we reached, a key agreement in securing the supply of our economy. You have also maintained the course set by this Parliament on the green transition, with agreements on the finalisation of the Green Deal, the restoration of nature, the banning of certain emissions that are dangerous for our health, and, most recently, the ecological design of products. However, my group asks, Mr Sánchez, that you re-evaluate your efforts to conclude two very important negotiations. Firstly, the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, referred to by the President of the Commission, and the Stability and Growth Pact. We, the European politicians of the 2020s, cannot repeat the incuries of the 2010s on these two subjects, because they would be reproached to us. We can demonstrate that Europe can be united and effective on these issues. It is now on these two files that the image of Europe is at stake, and at the same time the legacy of your presidency. We still have work to do, this mandate is not yet complete. All the European files have yet to be concluded in order to be able to take stock. The Presidency of the Council will also leave its legacy on these two files, which I hope can be concluded quickly.

Madam President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Prime Minister, for this very pro-European speech. Your government, following on from the previous one, has also breathed new life into Bulgaria and in particular into the European aspects. That is what I am speaking about today. This wind is European, as I said, it is progressive. Above all, it is welcome and it is this new energy that makes Bulgaria a strong European ally, particularly in concrete support for Ukraine in the face of the Russian aggressor. In any case, my European political family supports this political orientation and this change. I would particularly like to take this opportunity to welcome the spirit of responsibility of your party, which has also led to the formation of a coalition despite the differences, as we have seen at the moment, in the interest of the country, especially in the interest of Europe. In these institutions, there has often been a form of fatalism regarding some of Bulgaria’s difficulties within the Bloc in the fight against corruption, in the fight against global warming or in the unity of the continent from an international point of view. But, it must be said, the reforms of your government, of your predecessor, have blurred many criticisms. Today we work together, with a common vision, a European vision, that of a green Europe, that of an innovative Europe, that of a Europe in solidarity with Ukraine, that of a sovereign Europe, that of a Europe based on the rule of law. And in this Europe of tomorrow, Bulgaria has its place. A prominent place, especially in view of enlargement to the Western Balkans. You know that in my group we have Members who are very invested in the subject, but we also have European leaders with us who must play their part. And it is finally time for Bulgaria, together with its Romanian neighbour, to enter the Schengen area. We cannot disappoint the hopes of the Bulgarians and I also appeal to my EPP colleagues. Mr. member, as you know, as far as Renew is concerned, we have come a long way. We convinced our allies to take this decision to support the Bulgarians in the Schengen area and the EPP should be able to convince its allies as well, and in particular I am thinking of the Austrians who still lead this opposition in principle today. Prime Minister, with Renew Europe you always have this path, you will always have an ally and we will support you in these efforts.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, never again. This is one of the promises we made together after the Second World War. This is one of the reasons for a united Europe. Never again: Children, women and men murdered because they were Jews. Never again: insults, assaults, harassment, tags, ransacking. Never again: fear of being targeted because of one’s religion, origin. And yet, despite this promise, our fellow Europeans are afraid again. Fear, because Jews. Fear, because prejudice and hatred have found an excuse to free themselves. My conviction, ladies and gentlemen, is that those who see the fight against antisemitism as something other than a moral and humanistic obligation are part of the problem. Whatever the state of the world and our other legitimate struggles, no human being in Europe can be threatened because of his faith, his origin, his gender, his choices. Combating hatred in all its forms is the first duty of European elected representatives, the first obligation of European parliamentarians. Our history and this Parliament oblige us to do so. In this terrible moment, I know that many of our fellow citizens feel alone. And I would like, on behalf of my political group Renew Europe and also on behalf of this Parliament, to say to them: No, they're not alone. Europe will do everything to ensure your safety. Europe will do everything to punish the perpetrators of these crimes and hatred. Europe will do everything to educate, to transmit these values, against the falsifiers of history, against the extremes, against the parties that still resent, ladies and gentlemen, with anti-Semites and deniers, against those who confuse resistance and resistance with terrorism and terrorists. We will be there and I think this European Parliament will always be there. This Parliament was presided over by Simone Veil: a woman, Jewish, French, European and Holocaust survivor. This Parliament has always been by your side. The European Union will continue its historic mission of defeating antisemitism and the ferments of this division. This tireless fight for our European values and values, for our common mission, is also an individual obligation.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr High Representative, Renew proposes starting this debate because the last few weeks have shown the urgency for Europe to recover geopolitically. Our citizens are worried: they call for a Europe that speaks loudly, clearly and in unison, a Europe that is powerful. Mr High Representative, my group believes that what we have acquired as political capital, both inside and outside our Union, with the support of Ukraine, we could lose through a succession of scrambles. "Europe that protects" is no longer a slogan since 2019, it is a reality: at the level of Ukraine, vaccines, or the protection of our commercial and industrial interests. It is time for us to return to this will, which must be expressed for us on several levels. Power is both a method, tools and skills. I'll start with the method. Europe must have a method: the power method. And the cacophony on aid to the Palestinian people, the failure of the agreement with Tunisia, our apathy towards Kosovo, it is not a question of treaties, it is not a legislative issue, it is a lack of coordination, a lack of community work. We have to follow a goal, a continent, a voice. This is an objective, in itself, which we also pursued during the debates on the Commission’s installation: a geopolitical commission. Our group does not call for one person to be responsible for foreign policy, it calls for us to have collective interests, carried by one voice, by one message. From memory, on Ukraine, we managed to have several messengers, but only one message. Europe does not need a single phone number, as some say, but it needs its leaders to call each other and – first, perhaps – coordinate with each other. My group has always had a critical look at intergovernmentalism. It is also up to our Community institutions to prove that they are as effective, if not more effective, than the Member States, which they complement. Departing from this method requires orderly reminders. And Mr Várhelyi should have been – I think – disavowed by the Commission. My group had already requested, on several occasions, that there be a call to order. This is also the method that must be followed within the Commission. Second, Europe needs a tool: power. Public policies on security or external affairs are often slow to unify. We have taken a giant step forward with the purchase of joint production of weapons and the mobilisation of the European Peace Facility. However, we are multiplying projects without real unity, in terms of defence. I list four tank projects and three missile shield projects. New fiscal capacity is needed to strengthen our strategic autonomy. This can also be done – in our view – with constant treaties. However – as you know – we also have structural problems, and that will be my last point: Europe must have power skills. Our treaties are not necessarily equipped for rapid decision-making – this is often recalled in this Chamber. The list of sanctions against the Putin regime and assistance to these populations still depend on the veto of a number of states. Some, moreover, play the Trojan horse for other powers, as is the case in Budapest. We call for treaty changes so that Europe can have a unique voice in the world. As such, ending the unanimity rule remains a request on the agenda from my group. Madam President, with a three-step approach – the short term, the medium term, the long term – perhaps Europe will find its way. There is no miracle solution, I think, only work, consistency and great humility to meet the demands of our fellow citizens.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the suffering of the world has once again shaken our continent. The absolute barbarity of Hamas’ atrocities against Israeli civilians is undermining each and every one of us. Terrorism has struck again, and we stand with the Israeli people, just as the Israeli people stood with us in the face of terrorism. I would like to reiterate in the strongest possible terms on behalf of my group: no doubt, no doubt is possible as to the characterisation of the crimes of ‘terrorists’ and Hamas as a ‘terrorist organisation’. At a time when Jewish homes are being vandalised, our fellow European Jews are being threatened on our streets. This is a moral obligation. And if our continent were to experience anti-Semitic tragedies, those who feed this ambiguity today would have a share of responsibility. There is indeed a huge risk – as you have said, each and every one of us – of importing this conflict into our societies. The temptation is there, in the extremes. Our responsibility as Europeans is therefore to have a clear word, true to our values, true to our duties, including humanitarian ones. The resolution we are going to vote on must live up to this challenge, and I believe that we can agree on the following points, which, if adopted by all Members of the European Parliament, must be the intangible basis for the European Union’s action. First: the unequivocal condemnation of terrorism, the urgency to release the hostages – and I would like, like my colleague Iratxe García Pérez, to greet the families of the victims and hostages who are present today in Strasbourg. Second, the reaffirmation of Israel’s right to ensure its security, in compliance with international law and humanitarian law. This is the title of this debate, which was, in particular, validated in the Conference of Presidents with all the political groups. Thirdly, the need to ensure the protection of Palestinian civilian populations in the Gaza Strip. We are horrified by the images of the bombing of the Gaza hospital. One life is worth no more than another. On this third point, we also welcome the diplomatic efforts for the creation of a humanitarian corridor and the tripling of financial aid to refugees. Finally, fourth point: Europe supports any initiative that will eventually lead to a two-state solution, based on the 1967 lines, with two democratic sovereign states living in peace. That must be our political objective. European action must be built around this consensus. Whatever the issuer – President of the Council, President of the European Commission, High Representative, your word engages Europe. This resolution and the 27-member meetings that took place last night set your course. But I also wanted to say this here, in front of all my colleagues: The haphazard rubbish of the past few weeks must stop. Israelis and Palestinians need a reliable, clear, united Europe, which also brings together all Europeans on a clear position. We have succeeded for Ukraine, we must succeed for all the international crises that concern us. And this Parliament, I hope, will show, through its resolution, its level of demand as a ‘power’ Europe. I say this because geopolitical Europe is not a playground. It is not and should not be a partisan playground. It is the condition for the protection of our people and our values, and if we want to be a productive and constructive actor in this crisis, it is up to us to live up to it.

Madam Speaker, our colleague Lamberts always has good end quotes. First of all, I would like to thank all the speakers, and also my colleagues from the EPP, S&D and the Greens on the end of the term of office and being useful on the latest texts – there are still some this afternoon, especially on air quality. Majorities and ambitious processes are needed to achieve this. As you have understood, Madam President, we would like to be useful for the remaining nine months. Obviously, the issue of energy, the issue of immigration are our priorities. At some point, we will also have to talk about the institutions and our capacity to strengthen the powers of this Parliament. Of course, I did not mention this subject. This is never the time to talk about the institutions, but at some point, by pushing back reform, our ability to change, our ability to decide, in Europe, more quickly, we finally lose political effectiveness. Madam President, the watchword is "ambitiousness" for the last nine months, of course. And then the issue of democracy, as I mentioned in my speech at the end, is valuable. The rule of law will always be the DNA of my group.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, this plenary session on the State of the Union is not like any other. It is the last of the mandate, it is the last before the European elections. As you have said, Madam President, the past four years have been among the most significant in the recent history of European integration. Renew Europe is proud to have been in charge during this period, proud to have been useful in a coalition that was not obvious, but brought together pro-Europeans of goodwill. I would also like to thank the groups that worked in majorities, sometimes different, right and left, sometimes coordinated in Von der Leyen format, with the criticisms made by my colleague. But we managed to move forward, move forward in a coordinated way, move forward for Europe. If I want to summarise the state of mind of my group, we are proud of the common stocktake. We want the last few months to be useful, just like the last four years. But Renew Europe is also clear-sighted about some of the priorities, and some of the priorities of my group – we are not there yet, I will come back to that at the end of my speech, Madam President. If I start with the positive elements, I consider that Europe has been useful to our fellow citizens, more than ever in this period: it has been there in the pandemic, it has been there in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine to unite Europeans. Europe is here for future generations. The Green Deal makes Europe the most exemplary continent in terms of green transition. We do not have to have a shameful ecology. I know of no other parliamentary chamber in the world that has made such courageous decisions on this subject as we have in the past four years. We are here for our workers, our businesses. The reindustrialisation of the continent is now a reality set in motion, in the name of our sovereignty, our jobs and purchasing power. We are here for each of our fellow citizens on their rights. The digital Far West is now regulated by European laws. The independence of our media will soon be guaranteed by specific legislation. We are here for collective security and the foundation of a common defence. And on all these issues, we will go all the way – I am thinking in particular of the Green Deal. If I continue with what remains to be done – as you have also said, Madam President – we must find a lasting solution to migration issues. This is one of the texts that we need to finalise, together with the energy package, with a European industrial response. The last nine months, I repeat, will have to be useful. I also welcome the fact that you have also heard my group. Being useful doesn't mean regulating to regulate. We must reduce the bureaucracy that weighs on our citizens, on our entrepreneurs. To be useful is also to invest in line with our objectives. The green and digital transitions will only be successful if our laws are simple, intelligible and funded. Madam President, to conclude, a subject that is annoying. My group, as you know, is determined to defend the democratic model. I appreciate the work that has been done by our Commissioners. I also turn to the representatives of the Council, as co-legislators, we have seen that sometimes it drags its feet on the side of the Heads of State and Government. Europe has not yet responded to the desperate appeals of Polish and Hungarian judges, the independent press and civil society. I remain amazed when Italian prosecutors change the civil status of children and therefore withdraw rights from mothers because they are lesbians. My group calls for ever more efficiency, ever more simplicity, ever more reforms. We know that unanimity is poisonous. Please note: The extent of our Ukrainian support, our common solidarity, now depends on Viktor Orban. Madam President, we refuse the changeover of Europe, we refuse the orbanisation of our continent. This is a real danger, not only from a political point of view, but also from an economic and social point of view. The risk of endemic corruption, the risk of communities being targeted: the opposite of our European DNA, in short; I would even say the opposite of our civilizational project for our Europe. Madam President, you wanted a geopolitical committee, as you mentioned in your speech. It has been, by the will of history, much more than that. But beware, democracies rarely die from external threats, they often die from internal threats. It is up to us Democrats to act on time. Thank you for your speech. We share the essentials, and that the next nine months will be useful.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are here. After weeks of debate, of overbidding, we are called to decide on the law on the restoration of nature. Personally, I believe in an ambitious law. My group believes in a text that can bring together all those who care about ecology, all those who have supported the Green Deal from the beginning. But, let's say, the debate has slipped. It slipped on the form as well as on the background. And, at this point, it is the story of a huge mess that will have those responsible if this text is rejected. On the one hand, on the part of the European Commission, I can only deplore the absence here of Commissioner Timmermans. We do not create parliamentary majorities today without being in contact with this Chamber. And, as you know, for this law, there is now a need for narrative, a need for strategy – needs that we managed to meet for all the other political texts that the Commission presented on the Green Deal. There has been so much misinformation about this bill. How many misunderstandings could we have avoided if the Commission had woven a comprehensive strategy on these texts on the Green Deal? On the other hand, as you have already said in the speeches, the Conservative Group is very pleased to demonstrate that an alliance of the right with climate sceptics is possible. In reality, Mr Weber, as you know, you do not want this text, whatever the amendments, perhaps out of pure political expediency. As you know, it is now 37 degrees in Strasbourg. And I assure you, ladies and gentlemen of the EPP, that these partisan objectives will not be audible to future generations and to our children. So, on the one hand, the blindness and lack of strategy of the European Commission, on the other hand, the political and partisan overbidding. These are, in a way, the people responsible for the current situation. The text is likely to be rejected. My group is still trying hard to do the impossible. We have proposed amendments. Not everything is lost. We have 24 hours. Nature and biodiversity do deserve these efforts. My parliamentary group is both trying to make its unity internally – and I am also the actor – and the unity of the European Parliament as well. Colleagues, let us not set new precedents. Why has the Green Deal worked for a few years now? Because we have gone beyond our cleavages. We have gone beyond our divisions, but a number of groups are trying to create new ones. For me, nature and biodiversity have no political colour. Believe me, this strategy is short-term. Only extremes will benefit from this parliamentary polarization. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to do the job. We will propose within 24 hours a strategy to have a majority, at least to avoid the rejection of this text. I will call with all politicians, with those who have worked, with the chairs of parliamentary committees, with our rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, for a strategy for this text to succeed. I call for accountability, both on the left and on the right. In any case, until the last moment, we will be there to make this text a victory.

Madam President, Mr President, let me first welcome you to the European Parliament. By electing you, the Cypriots have reaffirmed their European ambition, but have also demonstrated that they do not like the status quo imposed on them. It is always a good signal of democratic vitality. As you know, Mr President, my group is particularly attentive to reformers and pro-Europeans who are shaking up conservatism and false political evidence. Your unambiguous engagement with Ukraine and your support for European solutions on the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum are also proof of this. We are proud to have members of our political family at Renew Europe as part of your government – in your majority. It is always with respect that we welcome here Heads of State or Government who also favour working with pro-European groups. We support your priorities – relaunching the peace process in Cyprus and achieving the reunification of the island. Yes, the European Union has a role to play. Too often in Brussels we have felt that this case is above all a Cyprus issue, or sometimes a Cyprus-Turkey issue, and we think it is a mistake. In Cyprus, 1.4 million European citizens live in a highly militarised area, with possible renewed tensions. The Cyprus conflict is also of direct concern to us because the Green Zone has become a privileged place of passage for illegal immigration – from Turkey to the island and then back to the European Union. We are all aware of the difficulties of Greece, Italy, Spain and Malta. Cyprus is also facing serious flows, and we cannot ignore this situation. Yes, the Cyprus issue is a European issue, and we are ready to play our part in resolving the conflict. My group supports your proposal for a European envoy to the UN negotiator. The analysis is also good: The key is on the Turkish side. We will never accept a two-state solution. We cannot accept militaristic excesses and provocations. The conditions laid down by President Erdoğan a few days ago were in breach of international law. Europe is the guarantor of international law, which is based on its foundations and principles. We have demonstrated this and shown it with Greece in the past, we must also show it with Cyprus if necessary: Cypriot sovereignty is European sovereignty. In this, Mr President, my group will support your efforts and your programme to ensure that peace and law prevail in the eastern Mediterranean. You can always count on the Renew Europe Group.

Madam President, we had a proposal for a debate that was not instrumentalising, which also had some form of responsibility on this issue. This European Parliament voted a few weeks ago on the negotiating mandates on the asylum and migration pact, and Mr Bardella voted against it. He comes back to us with an instrumentalisation of a different fact in France, a horror that happened in Annecy, to instrumentalise things. Congratulations! Your responsibility was to vote on the negotiating mandates, it was to vote on the Asylum and Migration Pact. But you do not want to settle the matter, Mr Bardella: you are surfing on this issue as some kind of election fuel. So, of course, Madam President, I am withdrawing the title, since we are going to discuss it at the time of the discussion with the President of the Commission. There will be this discussion, and I would obviously encourage colleagues to do everything possible to ensure that the issue is dealt with at European level, and not exploited as we have just seen.

Madam President, my group had planned to talk about the middle classes and to put the middle classes back at the centre of the European economy. Furthermore, the Council agenda does not address migration issues and we wanted a separate debate on migration issues, with the possibility of having an expression of all groups. I understand that there is a majority in this direction. So, of course, we are going to vote on the consensus proposal. I am just saying that there will be a number of aspects, including Tunisian issues, which will also have to be addressed in this debate with the President of the Commission.

Madam President, this is an extremely serious matter, which is why I would like to take the floor again. Renew Europe will probably propose a resolution by June so that we can, including in the European Parliament, take a concrete position on this case. I would like to make a comment on this, and perhaps send a message to our colleagues in the PiS. First, the remark: Finally, I am pleased that the EPP is aware of the true nature of their likely future coalition colleagues. Today the ECR Group is using the pretext of working on foreign interference to build the inability of oppositions to stand up against them, which is extremely serious in a democracy. And the European Parliament must in any case take all measures and speak out systematically against these procedures. Beyond that, I think that all the political groups will agree to this resolution and maybe also to adopt it here, in this plenary, so that we can have the start of the negotiations in perspective.

Madam President, Chancellor, ladies and gentlemen, welcome too. It is my turn to welcome you to the European Parliament. All the more so as Germany’s European commitment has always been present in recent decades. I must say that your coalition, Chancellor, has given this commitment a new impetus in recent months and it was expected. In this respect, Renew is proud that some of our proposals, such as the transnational lists, the end of unanimity – you mentioned the principles of foreign policy – which we miss so much vis-à-vis China, which is also supported by the FDP in Germany, are now the official ones of the German government. This new determination to think about the Europe of tomorrow is essential, and the Prague speech was welcome, Chancellor. We, the European parliamentarians, ask the European capitals for this vision. That, yes, of a change of time. Managing the crisis is not enough. We must now anticipate them, prevent them. Prevent the next ones, but also build and predict. Let’s take the energy, Chancellor. We spent the winter, we made efforts, diversified our supplies, accelerated renewables. Here in the European Parliament, we have done a job in this direction. But the following winter is a real challenge, and we need more electricity as our consumption explodes. We therefore need to produce more electricity and it must be decarbonised. What are your proposals at European level for our continent to be at the forefront of the energy of tomorrow? Germany also has a great responsibility for the stability of the electricity grid throughout the European Union, and for solidarity, being also the largest economy in the European Union. On the digital, our continent has been able to impose its ethics, its model. I trust us to be the first to set international standards on AI, as we did for digital giants and e-commerce. But Europe must not just be there to curb technological disruptions. She must be the engine. We must be the land of investment for artificial intelligence, and quantum. However, we know that, in this area, so much remains to be done about the obstacles to investment and training. The green transition and the digital transition are the two pillars of our European sovereignty. They will be successful not only because of the action of Europe and the Member States, but also because we will provide an enabling, predictable and sustainable framework for our companies to get involved. I will end, Chancellor, with something that affects my group, Renew Europe, by reminding you of our commitment to the European Union’s massive support in Ukraine, in funding, training, material assistance and yes, weapons. And I would like to welcome the efforts of the European Commission and more particularly of Commissioner Breton in this area in recent weeks. My group will continue to push every state every day to contribute more so that Ukraine can win this war. Germany has made decisive choices on this issue, in any case you can tell us about the next steps in your engagement in assisting Ukraine. Our Europe must also be faithful to Ukrainian sacrifices, in the sense that we must now foresee the institutional framework in which we find ourselves to welcome other European countries. Those who today have chosen democracy, our values, our European DNA. So, Chancellor, you ended with a quote: I will also end with a quote from a great social democrat, this time from France, Jacques Delors, who said that ‘Europe is like a bicycle if it does not move forward, it falls’. I hope that collectively we can move it forward.

Madam President, it is a real pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister of Luxembourg here in our Chamber. Prime Minister, your country has, since the beginning of European integration, made a very substantial contribution to our European Union. I would even like to say that if, in proportion to the size of the countries, all the European countries had contributed as much, both to the construction and to our organisation, perhaps we would have gone through a number of steps – which we are still discussing. First of all, I would like to tell you, Prime Minister, that you have been personally faithful to the history of your country. You have strongly defended your community of values at the European Council. You did this again in your speech to the European Parliament. Our group, Renew Europe, knows that it can count on you to carry out our projects, the conditionality of funds to respect for the rule of law, the Green Deal, European sovereignty – you also mentioned this in parallel. We are with you, like many of my colleagues in other political groups, when you denounce the excesses of Viktor Orban, the absurdities of populists. Your voice carries, and through you, that of the defenders of liberal democracies throughout Europe. The European Union is indeed the shield of liberal democracy, but we are also aware of its shortcomings in terms of democracy and effectiveness of decision-making. You in the European Council are in a good position to see these difficulties, both in time and in how we decide today in Europe. So Europe has certainly shown its flexibility – you have also mentioned it in the constitutional framework we know – in the context of crises, with strong responses on COVID-19, on the economic crisis, on the Russian invasion of Ukraine; with efficiency, a determination to act both here in the European Parliament and at the same time in the Council. The Conference on the Future of Europe laid the groundwork for reflection. My group regrets that we cannot go a little further, but, of course, economic, environmental and geopolitical emergencies have priority. Perhaps I would like to ask you about something. It is time for us to go to elections and, as you know, with transnational lists and also with the right of initiative in the European Parliament. I know that you also push these subjects. So, Prime Minister, thank you for your trust, thank you for your values, and a question: Are you ready, and how can we go further in our European organisation and institutional software?